chirorob Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 let's see; helping a running team win 4 SB's in 8 years is just not good enough. The evidence out weighs your opinion. Swann HOF. Fitz HOF. He also had a SB where he had 0 catches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 No WR dominated like Don Hutson what evidence other than 2 great games in SBs? Art Monk doesn't belong either, they let too many undeserving players in the Hall. it should be for the absolute best of the best not good players that had a couple of great years or games. When Art Monk retired, wasn't he the all time leader in receptions? With a couple of SB rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 When Art Monk retired, wasn't he the all time leader in receptions? With a couple of SB rings. that was more of a longevity thing, he was a good player(I love Art, local guy) but he doesn't belong in the Hall. he just played forever and put up consistently good #s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator_05 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Who's better: Fitzgerald or Steve Smith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 that was more of a longevity thing, he was a good player(I love Art, local guy) but he doesn't belong in the Hall. he just played forever and put up consistently good #s. Agree. Like Don Sutton and Curtis Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 Agree. Like Don Sutton and Curtis Martin. haha, you love Curtis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 haha, you love Curtis I thought you'd enjoy that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetdawgg Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 He also had a SB where he had 0 catches. ....and he is still in the HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 ....and he is still in the HOF that doesn't mean he belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 ....and he is still in the HOF Oh, he's not getting kicked out cause of me. Just, it was stated he was a part of 4 SB teams and had some great games. I also pointed out he had the amazing 0 catch game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetrider Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I am a very tough grader for the Hall, it would b the best of the best. the truly greats not the very good/possibly greats. only dominant players should be in the Hall. I am a very tough grader for the Hall, it would b the best of the best. the truly greats not the very good/possibly greats. only dominant players should be in the Hall. That means Namath doesn't make your hall cause he was more fame than game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share Posted January 21, 2016 That means Namath doesn't make your hall cause he was more fame than game. He makes it b/c of what he meant to the game., if it was strictly based on play he wouldn't but he is a huge reason the game became as popular as it did so he gets in on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Maybe I'm way off saying this but, to me, TO is one of the all-time greats. Rice and Moss are my #1 and #2 (of the WRs I've seen) but TO might well be #3. Like Rice and Moss, he had times where absolutely dominated. So am I way off on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdels62 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Maybe I'm way off saying this but, to me, TO is one of the all-time greats. Rice and Moss are my #1 and #2 (of the WRs I've seen) but TO might well be #3. Like Rice and Moss, he had times where absolutely dominated. So am I way off on this? TO was a douchebag but he is unquestionably a HOFer and possibly the only right choice for to round out the top 3 - for now. He has the numbers, he was good everywhere and he almost single handedly won a Super Bowl for the Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Diddy Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Maybe I'm way off saying this but, to me, TO is one of the all-time greats. Rice and Moss are my #1 and #2 (of the WRs I've seen) but TO might well be #3. Like Rice and Moss, he had times where absolutely dominated. So am I way off on this? To me TO is better than Moss. TO was a complete receiver Moss was a one trick pony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscanyTile2 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 To me TO is better than Moss. TO was a complete receiver Moss was a one trick pony I think I'm biased toward Moss because of that crazy season he had w/ New England when they went 18-1. But prior to that, I probably would've agreed that TO would be ahead of Moss. To be honest, I'd have to look more closely but I agree that TO might be 2nd to Rice. As another poster wrote, TO is a d-bag though. No argument there. But one hell of a WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjunc Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 I think I'm biased toward Moss because of that crazy season he had w/ New England when they went 18-1. But prior to that, I probably would've agreed that TO would be ahead of Moss. To be honest, I'd have to look more closely but I agree that TO might be 2nd to Rice. As another poster wrote, TO is a d-bag though. No argument there. But one hell of a WR. I loved watching Owens, he's so underrated b/c of some of the antics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.